Just how “Lawful Good” should the Bat-Family be?

[godisawesome]

I though about this while spitballing about that Batman vs Catwoman arc they’re rolling out, when someone mentioned the idea of the Batfamily disliking Catwoman still robbing people, which I mildly disagreed with… and it occurred to me that there’s been some major flexibility and at times inconsistency regarding what crimes they absolutely oppose, which ones they can tolerate, and which ones they even seem to tacitly approve of.

We all know they’re not locked into Lawful Good at all, but we also agree that they are more crime fighters than outlaws… so what types of standards, boundaries, priorities, and such do you think make sense for them? Individually or as a unit?

[Frontier]

I think on a general basis they're against all crime and don't naturally condone any sort of crime except in special cases or when their own biases play a part in it, but some are more hardline about it than others.

I feel like Dick would be more soft and willing to look the other way than, say, Babs or maybe Tim would be.

Jason would probably take a pretty nuanced stance on it because of his background and how he's kind of played around with both sides in a way.

Cass would probably go along with Babs and Bruce.

[marhawkman]

Honestly.... Bruce Wayne varies a lot, sometimes he goes towards true neutral honestly. he's never gone so far as to be chaotic or evil, in the main-U anyways, but good and lawful? not always. He's done some really questionable stuff. OMAC? not lawful. Tower of Babel? not good.

Other Bat-people each have their own quirks, Jason Todd definitely leans more towards chaos..

[bat39]

I think they traditionally would lean more towards 'Lawful Good' than not. 'Vigilante' is a popular term for Batman over the last few decades and while he technically is a vigilante (as are most superheroes, really), he's usually been a de-facto member/partner/ally of the GCPD. Not to mention, being a member of the Justice League, an organization that usually enjoys some kind of official status or sanction from either the US Government or the UN (in Johns' New 52 origin, Batman explicitly states that one of the benefits of forming the League would be that the individual heroes would gain a kind of sanction that would get the law enforcement authorities of their respective cities off their backs).

I don't think the Bat-family would ever tolerate any crimes. That said, they do seem to prioritize violent crime that endangers lives, which is understandable given that the genesis of it all was Bruce Wayne's parents being gunned down by a mugger. Crimes like theft which target lower-income or middle-class communities also have their attention...in 'There's No Hope in Crime Alley', Batman tells a guy living in the erstwhile Park Row that the loss of a few dollars in a mugging would be more devastating than the loss of thousands of dollars for a banker when the latter asks him why the legendary Batman would bother to save the likes of him from a mugging. Of course, this was way back in the Bronze Age, but I think this ethos continues.

Catwoman is an interesting case, but also a simple one on some level - Batman lets her off because he's got the hots for her That's been the case since her first appearance. But even as Batman either lusts after her, or is sympathetic to her, on a personal level, he's never condoned her acts of thieving - with some exceptions perhaps for when she's stealing from other criminals, or the Mob, or terrorist groups. When Bruce dates Selina, it's usually a Selina who is no longer a wanted criminal, by virtue of having done her time or having been legally let off the hook. There's also the fact that Selina isn't a murderer - that's a pretty big factor. Huntress' origin story on Earth 2 actually hinged on this - Selina was being blackmailed by someone who claimed to have evidence that she'd killed a man as Catwoman, and such a revelation would destroy her relationship with Bruce Wayne.

So murder does seem to be the line the Bat-family won't cross. Well, except with Jason to some extent. And Damian. But that's a whole other debate...

I think, as with pretty much everything else, real-world politics does seep into this. On both the left and the right in US politics, you have people who have a greater tolerance for deviating from 'Lawful Good' in order to do what they believe is the 'right thing'. And since many comic-book creators (as well as creators involved in adaptations in other media) tend to have their political leanings (usually left these days)...well, that probably does play a role in the increasing moral relativism of superhero stories.

[godisawesome]

My own POV is that it seems to vary greatly from era to era, with older works being far more likely to be purely lawful good, but the 80’s and 90’s introducing a bit of a wild card element both by embracing corrupt cops and city officials as foes and (subtly) painting the image of a younger Batman being more strict and an older one being more pragmatic.

And I love the idea of both the transition from strict to pragmatic for the family and that Bruce himself has some very hidden but sensible prioritizations that lean towards True Good rather than Lawful Good.

Like… I personally feel like a younger Batman should be more likely to oppose Catwoman as a thief in general, particularly when she herself is positioned as less choosy of her targets, but I also really like how Doug Moench’s and Loeb had there be semi-transitional tries where he reluctantly chooses to ally with her against a greater foe (and it’s not just that she’s hot), and I really like the two modern stories where they’re “established” and Bruce is willing to outright employ her professionally to steal or otherwise obtain precious information (like both Jon Ostrander and Solly Fisch had her do.)

I also feel like in modern times it’s a mild narrative necessity that if Bruce is investigating robberies committed against rich people, than those robberies should contain a violent element or be committed by another rich *******; modern Batman is so often rightfully focused on violence and murder that him being sidetracked by something an insurance claim could pay for doesn’t really work anymore.

But I also feel like certain Bat-family members sort of require the moral code be portrayed as True Good over Lawful Good just by being present. Like, if no one in the family is trying to throw Jason in jail, and as long as Helena Bertinelli or Damian can have even a small, old kill count in their backgrounds… then no one in the family should really have a problem with Selina stealing stuff and being a part of the family as well.

Jason especially muddies the issue, since I think most of his fans prefer a more mellow portrayal of his relationship with the family even if he’s still racking up a modest body count; as someone who thinks he *does* work as a mildly estranged but still not antagonistic member of the family, I just really can’t take the idea of an older Batman or his kids going “But Catwoman’s a criminal!” anymore.

[Aahz]

Other Bat-people each have their own quirks, Jason Todd definitely leans more towards chaos..

Jason is (at least the way he is mostly be written since flash point) chaotic good, Catwoman is somewhere between chaotic good and chaotic neutral.
And I think Steph and and maybe Helena are also more on the chaotic side.

And at least as Oracle Barbara has also done some things that go more in the chaotic direction.

Rest of the Batfamily tend more in the lawful direction.

[Rac7d*]

Let Jason Helena Selina Kate be the dark half of the bat family

[Frontier]

For the record when Helena first joined the BoP Babs was pretty insistent on her not killing and basically molding her into having a no-kill rule like Batman would've done and when Helena figured it out she was ticked.

[Bruce Wayne]

Let Jason Helena Selina Kate be the dark half of the bat family

Like some sort of Batfamily Thundersbolts/Secret-Dark Avengers. Maybe throw in Azrael too.

[Alan2099]

I don't think the Bat-family would ever tolerate any crimes.

Except when they do them, and let's face it, some incarnations of Bruce have absolutely no problem beating the crap out of people, stalking them, spying on them, blackmailing, or otherwise terrorizing people to get what he wants.

Dick, Tim, and Barbara are far more "less criminal" in their actions.

Jason and Damien can frequently tip the line into outright evil in their pursuit of doing good.

[Konja7]

Jason is (at least the way he is mostly be written since flash point) chaotic good, Catwoman is somewhere between chaotic good and chaotic neutral.
And I think Steph and and maybe Helena are also more on the chaotic side.

And at least as Oracle Barbara has also done some things that go more in the chaotic direction.

Rest of the Batfamily tend more in the lawful direction.

Stephanie isn't so lawful for some things. However, I don't think she will support Selina's idea of allowing and enabling criminals to steal the rich.

After all, Stephanie's father being a criminal is a big thing for her.

[godisawesome]

Except when they do them, and let's face it, some incarnations of Bruce have absolutely no problem beating the crap out of people, stalking them, spying on them, blackmailing, or otherwise terrorizing people to get what he wants.

Dick, Tim, and Barbara are far more "less criminal" in their actions.

Jason and Damien can frequently tip the line into outright evil in their pursuit of doing good.

The Bat Family in general has rarely been constrained by the “Lawful” part of lawful good; if an agent of the law ends up standing between them and doing the right thing, whether out of ignorance or corruption, they can end up anything from ignored to beaten down.

And like Batman, various members have had writers or even whole periods of mimicking Bruce’s more “outlaw” periods - Tim was up to some shady but pragmatic stuff under Fabian Nicieza, Oracle was effectively breaking every single internet security and privacy law there was, the Azraels often had periods of being more nominal anti-heroes who were fortune to usually pint themselves as clearly greater evil, and Cass sometimes had issues tangling with her desire to do good being frustrated by legal acts she disagreed with.

I think the Family MO regarding when to break the law and when to not tends to depend heavily on the writer of the moment. Sometimes, they lean into more anti-authority writing as part of a general political mood, sometimes as a power fantasy, sometimes as a narrative convenience,a nd soemtimes they go the opposite way.

[Frontier]

Except when they do them, and let's face it, some incarnations of Bruce have absolutely no problem beating the crap out of people, stalking them, spying on them, blackmailing, or otherwise terrorizing people to get what he wants.

Dick, Tim, and Barbara are far more "less criminal" in their actions.

Jason and Damien can frequently tip the line into outright evil in their pursuit of doing good.

I think a lot of that comes down to bad writing though.

[Aahz]

Dick, Tim, and Barbara are far more "less criminal" in their actions.

If you go back to the early days of Birds of Prey, Barbara was actually financing her operation by stealing money from Block Buster.

When it comes to evil vs good, if you go by the DnD definition of allignement, this axes mostly rates how selfish/selfless you are, killing isn't really such a big factor, since even good characters in DnD are going to kill a lot.

[Mantis-Ray]

I feel like they should be a bit more hardline, to some degrees. Like Batman can wind up rather unsympathetic because of how biased he can be at times with how he enables some more morally unscrupulous characters to operate which tends to color his interactions with characters like Jason, Talia, Harley, Ghost-Maker, etc.

For instance Bruce should really be more consistent and actually enforce his whole "no murder" policy and put a firmer line on the sand that he will not work with killers.

So he should just cut of all contact with Talia, her choice to be the leader of the League means her values are completely irreconcilable with his own. Shadow War was pretty bad about this where Geo-Force has a point that Talia is a gigantic prick but we're still supposed to be on her side because she's Damian's mom. At that point Talia should be treated as nothing more than just another villain.

He should better maintain his values. Sure it makes him very obstinate but I feel like he's more respectable if keeps to his values more and less of his own biases. So he should be less enabling of characters like Ghost-Maker and Harley who really toe the line with their murderous impulses but he just lets them be with only some scrapes cause friendship or whatever. If they can get in line fine, but if they can't they get driven face-first into the pavement.